Vikram Solar Q1FY27: PAT crashes 85% YoY to ₹19.8 Cr despite 38% revenue growth

Vikram Solar's consolidated Q1FY27 print is a clear miss: PAT fell 85.2% YoY (and 82.1% QoQ) to ₹19.8 Cr even as revenue grew 37.9% YoY to ₹1,563.1 Cr (₹1,452.8 Cr in Q4FY26; ₹1,133.6 Cr a year ago). Analyst previews (Goodreturns) had modeled steeper revenue growth of ~52.6% YoY but a shallower PAT decline of ~-35.2% YoY with NPM near 12.4% — the actual print undershot both the top-line growth and the profitability bar, with NPM cratering to 1.27% versus 11.72% a year ago and 7.51% last quarter. The compression sits squarely on the cost line: cost of materials consumed, net of the inventory build, rose to roughly 81% of revenue this quarter versus ~69% a year ago and ~72% last quarter, implying module realizations have not kept pace with input costs. EBITDA margin (OPM) nearly halved sequentially and more than halved YoY, falling to ~8.1% from 16.1% (QoQ) and 21.4% (YoY). Finance costs rose 53% YoY to ₹49.4 Cr and depreciation rose 91% YoY to ₹64.0 Cr as the ongoing capex ramp adds fixed costs ahead of the revenue scale needed to absorb them. Management's May 2026 concall guided FY27 production of ~8GW and a 74% jump in full-year EBITDA to ₹1,500-1,600 Cr, while explicitly flagging "some near-term margin optimization." Q1's EBITDA of ~₹126 Cr annualizes to roughly a third of the low end of that target, so this quarter's margin dip is directionally consistent with that warning but larger in magnitude than "some" implies — the full-year target is now contingent on a sharp margin recovery over the remaining three quarters. The same board meeting approved raising the Gangaikondan (Tamil Nadu) wafer/ingot capacity from 6GW to 9GW at up to ₹5,589 Cr, timed to the ALMM-3 mandate effective June 2028 — a fresh capex commitment layered on top of an already-compressed quarter. No management press release accompanied this filing; the company's earnings call is scheduled for August 7, 2026. Standalone results mirror the consolidated print (PAT ₹18.7 Cr on revenue ₹1,536.0 Cr), confirming the pressure is company-wide rather than subsidiary-specific, and neither period carries an exceptional item, so the decline is a genuine operating-margin story rather than a base-effect artifact.